S.231 CrPC | Prosecution Can Be Permitted To Introduce Documents Not Procured During Investigation And Filed With Final Report: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has stated that a document can be submitted as evidence under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which was not procured during investigation nor produced along with the final report.

“The contention that the document was not seized earlier or that it was not part of the final report, is not a relevant consideration in a proceeding of this nature” observed Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.

The petitioner was charged under Sections 308 (attempt to culpable homicide), 326A (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 following an incident where the petitioner was said to have attacked the victim with acid.

A petition had been filed by the public prosecutor seeking to re-open the evidence to produce a disability certificate and to examine the doctor who issued the certificate stating that the victim has become 100% blind which was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muvattupuzha. This petition was filed after the evidence had been presented and case posted for hearing.

Counsel for petitioner contended that the production of evidence that came into existence after filing the final report is not permissible as the document in question is dated two years after the final report was filed. Petitioner argued that in a criminal trial, the prosecution ought to produce all the documents which they rely upon under section 173 CrPC and copies of those documents are required to be supplied under section 207 CrPC and further that under section 220 CrPC, the prosecutor must open his case by describing the charge and the evidence that the prosecution proposes to prove.

He added that his right to a fair trial will be prejudiced if such documents are permitted to be produced following the completion of evidence as the defence strategy is based on the materials submitted by the prosecution.

Shri TR Ranjith, the learned public prosecutor countered that the court's power to permit any evidence on record is determined by its essentiality and as such, the power to recall witnesses or reopen evidence cannot be restricted.

The court stated that the provisions under Section 230 and Section 231 of CrPC indicates that the prosecution is entitled to produce any document supporting the prosecution evidence. Sections 230 and 231 of the CrPC outline the court's power to compel the attendance of any witness or the production of any documents. The court took note of the fact that although the prevailing practice is that the documents and evidence submitted are those collected during the investigation, the prosecutor cannot be confined to only those documents produced along with the final report.

“If an important document or a witness has been omitted or was not produced, for whatever reason it may be, the prosecution cannot be denied an opportunity to bring it on record as a piece of evidence in the trial” concluded the court.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates V John Sebastian Ralph, Vishnu Chandran, Ralph Reti John, Appu Babu, Shifna Muhammed Shukkur, Giridhar Krishna Kumar, Vishnumaya MB, Geethu TA and Apoorva Ramkumar

Counsel for Respondent: Advocate TR Renjith, Public Prosecutor

Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 220

Case Title: Shyju v. State of Kerala

Case Number: Crl MC No. 874 of 2023

Click here to read/download the judgement